Pharyngula::Vox gets vile, again

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Vox gets vile, again

PZ Myers • 67 Comments (last page)

Oh, jeez. Now Vox Day is making excuses for rape.

Actually, he's making a very convoluted argument that rape is only evil if the woman is chaste and Christian. Being pagan or Muslim means you don't get to complain about rape, nor can you protest if you have had sex outside of marriage.

To put it more clearly [Vox Day? Clear? Heh.], if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.

I find Vox Day to be a thoroughly creepy and amoral creature, one I wouldn't trust within a thousand yards of my female relatives. I think he's twisted and insane, and hope he remains a fanatical Christian—the only thing that's keeping him on a leash seems to be his belief in a punitive deity.

He has this bizarre notion that atheists are necessarily amoral themselves, based on fallacious assumptions about how people operate when they aren't under the illusionary thumb of a god:

And while "might makes right" is the true essence of atheist amorality, it is not exactly the most convincing means of attempting to assert the moral evil of the rapist. As for Utilitarians in a demographically declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the contrary.

This is so wrong. Most atheists don't base their morality on "might makes right"; it's based on the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…an idea that's older than Christianity. I do not rape because I would not want to be raped, and I have empathy for other human beings.

Empathy is a very human thing, and if I had to, I could even rationalize it biologically as an extremely useful capacity for individuals living in social groups. I don't have any problem justifying morality on utilitarian grounds, either.

I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3521/pUrpoKOG/

Comments:

#52882: — 12/08 at 10:19 AM
Divine Command theorists scare me. If I bump into one who admits that the only thing stopping him from going berserk is belief in a punitive deity, I think I'll call him what he is: A monster.

#52886: The Rev. Schmitt. — 12/08 at 10:33 AM
Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.

I swear to God, the man doesn't know his own beliefs, nevermind the ridiculous attributes he attaches to words he clearly doesn't begin to understand (Utilitarians, atheist, moral relativist, etc.)

As for Utilitarians in a demographically declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the contrary.

Really, I'd like to see him try. And I love how he claims that Judeo-Christian belief is clear cut and somehow more obviously justified than other forms of morality. I genuinely think that in Vox's case he's trying to show (optimism stops me from believing his stated and implied ethics actually belong to him,) that it is only fear of God that keeps him in line. The entire structure of a ridiculous proportion of his arguments centre around it.

One of the few things more disturbing than Vox Day is his writing ability. God knows how people like him get in the limelight.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

#52887: — 12/08 at 10:33 AM
Actually, I knew a guy once who was a Seventh Day Adventist and whenever he used to get upset he'd say something along the lines of "If I didn't believe in Jesus I would go completely insane and murder any one I saw" or "you'd better hope I don't forget about Jesus, or else".
Yep, this guy was nuts.

#52893: — 12/08 at 10:39 AM
Well, damn, you can apply Vox's vile attitude to money and robbery, too. "If someone gives their money away to charity whenever they feel like it, then they can't get upset when someone robs them. That person just wanted some of their charity. And look at how they were dressed! Anyone wearing a good suit and a good watch is just asking for it—showing off their money like that!"

#52896: — 12/08 at 10:44 AM
"They're probably just socialists, too—you know they ain't got no morals!"

#52898: — 12/08 at 10:48 AM
I've read Vox's blog a few times, it's pretty ridiculous stuff. Many of the posters there are lunatics as well.

#52899: JavaElemental — 12/08 at 10:52 AM
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.

A shackle? Or an outlet, a lot of times.

#52903: — 12/08 at 10:57 AM
'Agnostic to Vox: talk to an informed person about the concept of 'mortal sin'.'

BUT this is an idea to a specific sect of the religion. So yes your correct in a kinda sorta way but the concept of sin without levels is not really inherent to Christianity and has no biblical basis.

#52912: — 12/08 at 11:46 AM
I'm also beginning to see one virtue to religion: as a shackle for psychopaths.

If you read James Hogg's Confessions of a Justified Sinner, you won't even see that virtue anymore:

http://tinyurl.com/asxat

I read somewhere that "James Hogg" is a pseudonym for philosopher William Godwin, but I can't remember where I saw the reference.

#52934: Mikko Sandt — 12/08 at 12:55 PM
A Christian libertarian? I didn't know that such beings exist. In Finland, almost every libertarian is an atheist.

#52949: — 12/08 at 01:42 PM

A Christian libertarian? I didn't know that such beings exist. In Finland, almost every libertarian is an atheist.

The term has gotten very watered down in recent years in America. Nowadays you see a lot of young, male, conservative Christians who call themselves 'libertarians' because they think it sounds hipper than calling themselves conservatives.

Basically, I think the term is being picked up by anyone who wants to abolish taxes and social spending, regardless of whatever other beliefs they hold. Vox Day seems to be a theocratic libertarian -- this appears to mean that he wants taxes and social spending abolished, but he still wants Fundamentalist Christian principles to be mandated into law. So the social-laissez faire aspect of libertarianism goes out the window.

Seems rather a perversion of 'libertarian' to me, but what are you gonna do?

#52955: — 12/08 at 02:10 PM
We could even speculate that the guy is just transfering a secret wish to rape and doesn´t do it only because he believes that "might is right" and that this god guy will come and smite him for good.

#52991: — 12/08 at 05:06 PM
The Morality of Carjacking
...
The criminality of carjacking in this country is beyond question, but as I have pointed out with regard to other matters, legality is not morality. It is illegal to drive across an intersection when a specific light is red, but this is not an immoral act. It is immoral to seduce your friend's wife in his car, but it is not illegal. Furthermore, there are no shortage of countries where carjacking is not only legal, but an established policy of the government authority, so the criminal aspect is obviously irrelevant with regard to questioning the fundamental morality or immorality of the act.

But which morality? The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – carjacking is a sin, a willful pollution of a car that rightly belongs to God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of carjacking to be evil and justly holding the carjacker accountable. But this ethic does not offer a blanket excuse to victims, near victims and would-be victims either, since the element of consent – which today draws the dividing line between carpooling and carjacking – can also provide a contrarian condemnation of the driver's own actions.

(Here one must note the intellectual poverty of the carjacking mythologists. If carjacking concerns power, not location, then how is it possible for the simple absence, or worse, withdrawal, of consent to immediately transform a "carpool carjacking" situation from an inherently locational one to one where location plays no role at all?)

To put it more clearly, if a driver consents to casual carpooling, the driver is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the rider who engages in casual carpooling with the driver, or by the rider who, in the absence of such consent, carjacks the driver. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the driver who is not entertaining the possibility of carpooling with a rider and is subsequently carjacked can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that driver who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a driver's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.

#53008: — 12/08 at 07:32 PM
"tit-for-tat was made famous as the solution for iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, a non-zero sum game."

Yes, of course, thank you Shygetz! I misremembered, maybe because I have no practise as a prisoner.

Wikipedia has a nice article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma ). Strategies that topscores are nice, retaliating, forgiving and nonenvious. 'tit-for-tat with forgiveness' was the best deterministic strategy for single players. (You cooperate around 1-5 % of the times you are cheated, to break cycles of cheating.)

"pretty much standard morality as I understand it."

Umm, morality is the codification of concepts and beliefs on right or wrong, or the conformity to that codification. Yep, it seems pretty standard behaviour when you describe it, so it should be standard morality. So you are saying that it isn't only good theory but good practise as well?!

As an aside, I enjoyed decrepits description of a 'Silver Rule' but I think the tit-for-tat version of the 'Golden Rule' is stronger.

#53012: Ebonmuse — 12/08 at 08:19 PM

BUT this is an idea to a specific sect of the religion. So yes your correct in a kinda sorta way but the concept of sin without levels is not really inherent to Christianity and has no biblical basis.

I don't agree. True, the idea of venial and mortal sin is unique to Catholicism, but there are biblical verses supporting the idea of some kind of hierarchy of punishment. Matthew 10:14-15:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

If all sins are equally serious, then how could anyone have it worse in the afterlife than Sodom and Gomorrah will?

#53228: — 12/09 at 05:14 PM
I have to wonder how serious Vox Day really is about some of his more bizarre claims; I wonder if he is trolling, hoping to make people indignant at him just so he can snicker at how irrational they are.